Jarrett Skroup asks an intriguing question in the Midland County Public Policy Examiner: Why don’t advocates of a government-run health insurance plan put their money where their mouth is?

If it’s easy to lower costs in health care spending by adding one insurance company, and it would be profitable to do so (as a government-run plan would have to be to be self-sustaining as the president claims it would be), why haven’t any of them simply done it?

[If] it’s so simple to cut costs, why does the president not start his own company? Think about it: BlueCross Barack. The company would save people money, offer dirt cheap insurance, ignore preexisting conditions, save cats from trees, help granny cross the street, and do so at very little cost.

So why won’t this be done? Is it because the president hates money? (His million-dollar book advances say no). Does the Huffington Post not want the responsibility? Why won’t these liberals put their money where their mouth is?

Because, simply, they know this would not be profitable. People would flood in initially, but soon, things would go downhill. Hospital visits will go up. Drug prices would inflate. Premiums would skyrocket. The company would fail.

We know that this imaginary company would not be profitable because the Congressional Budget Office says this will cost well over $1 trillion. If the health care bills cost cannot be sustained just by what people pay for it, than how is it worth it?

Even if the president doesn’t do it himself (he’s a pretty busy guy, after all), it sure is weird that no greedy insurance companies would jump on this great opportunity to bring another 47 million paying policy holders into their plans.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted,
provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly
cited. Permission to reprint any comments below is granted only for those comments written by
Mackinac Center policy staff.